Debate contribution: Restrictive Practices in Education Settings

Debate contribution by Mr Robbie Butler on 30 June 2025.

MLA

Mr Robbie Butler

Party at the time

Ulster Unionist Party

Date

30 June 2025

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Committee Business

Heading

Restrictive Practices in Education Settings

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 5043786

Read the official Assembly record

Text

It is four years and two months since I spoke in a debate on this issue. At that stage, the Department undertook to issue interim guidance. It is regrettable that we have not fixed the problem, but I am not going to point the finger at anyone — neither the Minister nor the Department. When I looked at the motion, I thought that it is helpful, because its language is not inflammatory in any way, and its tone captures the essence of the difficulties that are faced by parents and some educators in some schools. We should work towards removing article 4(1)(c), but, unlike what has been pitched here so far, it is not about removing it in the absence of something better; it is about developing something better with the ambition to remove it, because what is there is evidently not fit for purpose. I agree with the Chair of the Committee that, if it is not in place for youth settings, why would we deem it appropriate for younger children? The Ulster Unionist Party supports the motion, because it goes to the heart of what it means to deliver an education system that upholds the rights and dignity of every child, particularly those with the most complex needs. We must be honest about what has brought us here. For too long, parents have been raising the issue of the use of restraint and seclusion in our schools. Those are not abstract concerns; they are their children, and, often, those children are frightened and misunderstood, and, in some cases, they have been harmed. As mentioned, Deirdre Shakespeare's testimony about her son, Harry, who was restrained in ways that she was not even told about, has been a rallying cry for change. As she said, no parent should ever have to learn what has happened to their child many, many weeks and months after the fact. Her campaign for Harry's law, to make the reporting of such incidents mandatory, is based on one simple idea: that sunlight is the best disinfectant. The Children's Commissioner has described the use of seclusion as draconian; the ombudsman has highlighted that, since 2017, at least 20 cases have involved children being placed in isolation without their parents' knowledge; and the Royal College of Nursing felt compelled to walk away from the Department's working group on restrictive practices due to the lack of clear safeguards and ambition to truly eliminate harm. However, I have to be clear: this must not be about blaming teachers or classroom staff; far from it. Those professionals are being asked to respond to increasingly complex needs — sometimes without the training, resources or space to do so safely or ethically. We must listen to special school leaders who say, "We need clear guidance, yes, but we also need more staff, more space and more time". The National Association of Head Teachers (NAHT), which represents school leaders here, has said plainly that, without statutory guidance and training, schools are left to navigate a legal and ethical minefield on their own. That is not safe for staff or pupils. As the Member for — where are you from, Peter? East Belfast? No, you are from North Down.

It is pretty close. We have to be clear that no teacher wants to be in a situation in which restraint feels like the only option. He painted that picture really well. Our teachers are working in increasingly complex situations, but, right now, too many are working in those spaces because the alternatives are unavailable or underdeveloped. That is a failure of system design, not of individual intent. We need compassionate reform. That means repealing article 4(1)(c) of the Education Order 1998, which allows for reasonable force in a way that is too vague and too open to misuse. It means commissioning an update to the 2013 ETI report to reflect today's realities in special schools. It also means investing in the environmental and relational factors that reduce stress before it escalates. What we have today is based on what we knew at the time. In 1998, we were not talking about adverse childhood experiences (ACEs), and we did not understand that behaviour is also a form of communication, particularly for non-verbal children. The Department has developed good policies through its nurture-based, emotionally supportive and trauma-informed practice. Those of themselves kick against article 4(1)(c). This is not a call for perfection to be achieved overnight; it is a call for progress that is rooted in the rights of the child, supported by the professionalism of our staff and shaped by the lived experiences of families who have waited for far too long to be heard. The use of restrictive practices must be an absolute last resort, not a fallback borne of insufficient alternatives. We cannot patch this up anymore with policy promises or sticking plasters; it is time for structural, statutory and child-centred change.

819 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 13:06 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9.

Disagree with this assessment?

Classifications can be challenged. A person reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.

Challenge this classification